[ad_1]
New Wednesday of New Times by Peter Uj.
I’m interested
Four days after the leak, László Palkovics, president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA), received a review letter from the Minister of Innovation and Technology, László Palkovics.
In his letter, Freund called it shocking that the Ministry of Innovation and Technology (ITM), led by László Palkovics, had made a professional decision to support basic scientific research. Exactly:
changed the decision to support OTKA’s (National Scientific Research Funding Programs) Medical and Biological College by including among the winners the candidate who finished first in the given jury ranking.
In its reply letter, which Palkovics reviewed, ATV emphasizes, above all, that the government generously supports national scientific research. The Eötvös Loránd Research Network will provide 22 billion HUF in additional funding to institutions starting next year, and will support the establishment of large laboratories (National Laboratories) established in national research collaborations in the amount of 14 billion HUF. .
“The National Laboratories, as well as the OTKA system, generate significant trust among the actors, which is an essential condition for the functioning of any national system of financing innovation or supporting research.” said the Minister.
At the request of Tamás Freund, according to which the government should initiate a reform of the law so that the rankings established in the system of OTKA’s legal successor, the National Office for Research, Development and Innovation (NKFIH), Palkovics, cannot be modified. it states:
considers it necessary to maintain that the current president of the NKFIH (appointed by the prime minister) can override the decisions of OTKA schools.
That is, because, according to Palkovics, in the last more than 30 years, the current OTKA decision-making leadership has not had a substantial means in their hands to bring bedroom decisions under objective control.
“Therefore, the OTKA system, which enjoys an excellent reputation, also had undisputed power over current investigators and applicants, and there was no real opportunity for third-party review of decisions. The way in which the resources were allocated did not have a substantial control ”.
– writes.
Palkovics considers it a good method for the NKIF to ask the leaders of professional universities about the “ranking of researchers who perform poorly according to objective indicators” in relation to the ranking established in OTKA universities.
The call for justification is based on a scientific basis, writes Palkovics, then informs Freund that he is not involved in evaluating the research as field minister: “I myself am one of the practitioners of science, so I have the opportunity to evaluate scientific research in this capacity as well, not just as a minister.” points out in his letter.
Regarding the current review of the OTKA College decision, which he opposed in a letter from the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Palkovics writes that it was “extremely important” that the OTKA decision be changed only if “in On the whole, professional evaluations are not convincing enough. ‘
“The work of the universities is commended for the fact that I have only reviewed the proposed decision 9 times in the case of more than 320 decisions.”
– writes, adding that “the decisions made in the evaluation system were almost invariably taken at an adequate and good level compared to the objective indicators.”
According to him, researchers who were included in the review during the review “moved the circle of beneficiaries in a positive direction”, that is, researchers with better scientific indicators were included in the support.
He adds that seven of the nine ex post studies are supported by residual money from the previous Leadership program, which does not affect OTKA’s financial decision-making area.
According to Palkovics, what is really problematic about the whole case is that the names of several investigators involved in the review have been made public. All this, according to the minister, “indicates well the value of the confidentiality declarations signed in the OTKA system and raises questions on the subject of objectivity and professionalism.”
“Trust and credibility in such cases are really undermined, especially since this is not an individual case, it is an open secret that some of the applicants are aware of some of the bedroom classifications before the decision is made.” notes the minister, who fortunately declined Freund’s invitation to lunch at the end of his letter.
[ad_2]
